MV’s are changing God’s word on who’s authority ? ?

logos1560

Well-known member
John 10:30 Jesus said,”I and myFather are one”. Most MV’s say “ I and the Father are one”. The Father is not necessarily my Father, and to change the wording based on the corrupted minority texts
You failed to prove your allegation to be true. Perhaps the Textus Receptus has a definite article in Greek, which would also explain why the KJV has the "my" in italics. You fail to prove that modern versions are mistranslating what is in the Greek at John 10:30.

"My" at John 10:30 is not in a different type or in italics in the 1611 edition so it was later editions that put it in italics.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You failed to prove your allegation to be true. Perhaps the Textus Receptus has a definite article in Greek, which would also explain why the KJV has the "my" in italics. You fail to prove that modern versions are mistranslating what is in the Greek at John 10:30.

"My" at John 10:30 is not in a different type or in italics in the 1611 edition so it was later editions that put it in italics.
Yes, It was proved but your bias has you blinded to truth. Now back on ignore.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Yes, It was proved but your bias has you blinded to truth. Now back on ignore.
Thanks for letting readers of this forum see that you put me on ignore in order to avoid the truth. My supposed bias is for the KJV, which I have read for over 50 years.

Because the word of God as translated in the KJV maintains that the wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:17), I make an effort to obey Scripture by not showing partiality or respect of persons to one exclusive group of doctrinally unsound Church of England critics in 1611.

Do you seek to have me to commit sin by having respect of persons to the KJV translators (James 2:9)? You show readers that you are the one who is blind to clear scriptural truth.

Since you will close your eyes to the truth, here is a shocking statement by one of the KJV translators to which your human KJV-only reasoning shows respect of persons or partiality.

KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “We hold good works necessary to Salvation; and that faith without them saveth not” (Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, p. 29).
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Active member
FOR ALL READERS: Please see the two posts above.

logos is right - People who post the truth here and refute Leatherneck are going to be put on 'ignore'.

It's not very ethical. It definitely is lacking in courage and integrity.

But there we are.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
NOTE: Leatherneck has me on 'ignore' due to my refuting him on Acts 20:28. Please refer this to him.

And I would be happy to see your argumentation against this beautiful text:

Acts 20:28 (AV)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Please share the discussion url. Thanks!
 

imJRR

Active member
I didn't argue against it. It was argued (or at the very least, VERY STRONGLY suggested) that since the ESV has the word "obtained" instead of "purchased" the doctrine of redemption was being omitted or at the very least threatened. That idea is not just foolish nonsense, it is falsehood.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
here is a shocking statement by one of the KJV translators to which your human KJV-only reasoning shows respect of persons or partiality. KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes wrote: “We hold good works necessary to Salvation; and that faith without them saveth not” (Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, p. 29).

Rick, do you get shocked every time you read James 2:18?

Lancelot Andrewes was quoting Augustine quoting James.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
I didn't argue against it. It was argued (or at the very least, VERY STRONGLY suggested) that since the ESV has the word "obtained" instead of "purchased" the doctrine of redemption was being omitted or at the very least threatened. That idea is not just foolish nonsense, it is falsehood.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (AV)
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,
which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body,
and in your spirit, which are God's.

Acts 20:28 (AV)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Obtained looks like a terrible translation.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Lancelot Andrewes was quoting Augustine quoting James.
KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes was favorably quoting, and he was claiming to be presenting the view of the Church of England in response to that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Lancelot Andrewes wrote:
"We hold Freewill as Saint Augustine held it.
We hold good works necessary to Salvation: and that faith without them saveth not" (Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, p. 29).

Raymond Chapman maintained that In Andrewes’ “sermon ‘Of the Powers of Absolution’ he defends sacramental confession and the priestly power of absolution, both supported in the Book of Common Prayer” (Before the King’s Majesty, pp. 81-82). In this sermon on John 20:23, Lancelot Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-Six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins. Referring to James 5:14-15, Andrewes wrote: "Call for the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin it shall be forgiven him" (Ibid., p. 95). In notes written by Andrewes in his own Book of Common Prayer, it stated: "The Absolution--Remission of Sins, to be pronounced by the Minister alone" (Works of Lancelot Andrewes, p. 147; Two Answers, p. 147). The Dictionary of Literary Biography confirmed that "in 1600 Andrewes gave direct offense by preaching in defense of priestly absolution" (Vol. 172, p. 5). Dorman cited from his Visitation Articles where Andrewes wrote: “By the minister he [the parishioner] may receive the benefit of absolution, to the quiet of his conscience” (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 128; Two Answers, p. 131).
 

Steven Avery

Active member
KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes was favorably quoting, and he was claiming to be presenting the view of the Church of England in response to that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Lancelot Andrewes wrote:
"We hold Freewill as Saint Augustine held it.
We hold good works necessary to Salvation: and that faith without them saveth not" (Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, p. 29).

So are you shocked every time you read James 2:18?

logos1560 said:
here is a shocking statement

James 2:18 (AV)
Yea, a man may say,
Thou hast faith, and I have works:
shew me thy faith without thy works,
and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
You can choose to try to rationalize or excuse incorrect Church of England doctrinal views if you want to.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
You can choose to try to rationalize or excuse incorrect Church of England doctrinal views if you want to.

I am more interested in your being shocked by the quote from Lancelot Andrewes.

Does James 2:18 shock you as well?

Do you accept Acts 8:37 as scripture?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
So are you shocked every time you read James 2:18?



James 2:18 (AV)
Yea, a man may say,
Thou hast faith, and I have works:
shew me thy faith without thy works,
and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

You improperly and wrongly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I nowhere suggested that I am shocked when I read James 2:18. You jump to a bogus wrong conclusion again.

James 2:18 in the KJV does not say the same thing as what Lancelot Andrewes stated.

Lancelot Andrewes wrote:
"We hold Freewill as Saint Augustine held it.
We hold good works necessary to Salvation: and that faith without them saveth not" (Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, p. 29).

Showing a person's faith by their works is not the same thing as claiming that good works are necessary to salvation. If Augustine was supposedly quoting from James 2:18, his imperfect Latin translation of that verse may have misled him to say something different from what is stated as translated in the KJV.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
You improperly and wrongly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I nowhere suggested that I am shocked when I read James 2:18. You jump to a bogus wrong conclusion again.

James 2:18 in the KJV does not say the same thing as what Lancelot Andrewes stated.

Lancelot Andrewes wrote:
"We hold Freewill as Saint Augustine held it.
We hold good works necessary to Salvation: and that faith without them saveth not" (Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, p. 29).

Showing a person's faith by their works is not the same thing as claiming that good works are necessary to salvation. If Augustine was supposedly quoting from James 2:18, his imperfect Latin translation of that verse may have misled him to say something different from what is stated as translated in the KJV.

So you like and affirm as the truth of God James 2:18 but do not like what was said by Lancelot Andrewes?
 
Top